The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 60

Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII.


Babinich 1 | 455
22 Jun 2010 #31
britain went to war because they were concerned with the growth of german power disrupting the balance of power in europe.

There was very little Britain could do about that.
Harry
22 Jun 2010 #32
Why did Hitler have to be stopped? Nazi policy was to be friendly towards the British as they were supposed to be natural allies.

How nice of you to call actions in which several hundred British servicemen lost their lives "irrelevances". And of course you don't give any examples of what more could have been done in 1939.

What I've never been able to reconcile however is how, in due course, several tens of thousands of Poles, if not more, managed to travel their way across wartime Europe and arrive in England after the fall of Poland and place themselves in the service of HMG.

Several hundred of those brave Poles even managed to arrive in Britain before Britain had even declared war!

'Doing all in your power' means just that, and cannot be read down, because it frustrates the intent of the treaty and makes it redundant.

Could you perhaps list the specific things which it was within Britain's power to do in September 1939 which Britain did not do?

Breaching clause 5 of the treaty by not telling Poland about the relevant outcomes of Teheran.

Could you please quote the part of that treaty in which Britain commits to protect Poland's borders?

Not consenting to releasing Anders and his troops in early-mid 1945 so they could fight their way back to Poland. Why not?

Could you remind me of the nationality of the supreme allied commander? The same man who favoured the broad front strategy.

If I cause a car accident and injure party A, then am injured by party B who caused another accident, am I precluded from bringing an action against party B simply because I caused another different accident and injured A? No.

You would be if you'd been disqualified from driving for causing accidents that injured C, L and U. And Poland really should have been disqualified from driving. Your words (your words, not you) remind me of a serial paedophile who complains about getting raped in prison.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
23 Jun 2010 #33
Why did Hitler have to be stopped?

Why do you ask a rhetorical question?

Nazi policy was to be friendly towards the British as they were supposed to be natural allies.

Why then did HMG not form an alliance with Nazi Germany if that was the case, rather than with Poland?

How nice of you to call actions in which several hundred British servicemen lost their lives "irrelevances".

I apologise unreservedly to any British who were offended by my words - I certainly didn't intend my words to convey that sentiment or to cause offence and I retract that. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the Brits and Cth soldiers who fought in WW2 and you're aware of that.

Several hundred of those brave Poles even managed to arrive in Britain before Britain had even declared war!

Peking! Peking! Peking! A joint operation, mutually consented to, whereby some ships of the Polish navy went to Britain and served under HMG with gallantry. How Polish is that!

And of course you don't give any examples of what more could have been done in 1939.

The burden of proof is not on me to give examples - how can I speculate on the state of mind of a government concerning what that government subjectively believed could be achieved assistance-wise but having regard to what was in their power to do? I can't prove a negative, can I?

It's on you to convince that HMG did all in its power to assist. Did they? What more could they have done that they didn't do?

Could you please quote the part of that treaty in which Britain commits to protect Poland's borders?

Could you please quote the part of the treaty which provides particulars as to when/how etc. article 5 is to be suspended? You can't can you. That's because there is no such provision, whether express, implied or collateral to the treaty, and no matter how hard you try to deflect it doesn't change the fact that HMG committed a prima facie breach of article 5 by not telling Poland about what happened at Teheran in respect of the relevant matters raised there concerning the future of Poland.

Could you remind me of the nationality of the supreme allied commander? The same man who favoured the broad front strategy.

I assume then that you do not disagree with the fact that Anders' proposal was not consented to. Good.

I'll also assume that any further rhetorical questions and/or questions posed as responses simply mean you agree to my contention in default of a genuine response, and that no further response from me is required.

You would be if you'd been disqualified from driving for causing accidents that injured C, L and U.

Really? Are you saying that a claimant can be wholly precluded from seeking remedies under a cause of action in say a motor vehicle accident (negligence) matter solely on the basis that at the time the cause of action arose the claimant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence? Or are you saying that a claimant can seek remedies at first instance but will then have such application dismissed on the basis of being disqulaified? Can you provide links to the applicable legislation and case law supporting your proposition? Do you get a feeling of deja vu here?

And Poland really should have been disqualified from driving.

And therein lies the answer. 'Poland' was not disqualified, no matter how much you wish it was. My proposition stands.
OP Ironside 53 | 12,450
23 Jun 2010 #34
Why

Dear Harry would you kindly buzz off my thread as you are not really contributing to it.
Topic is Poland in the eyes of London BEFORE WWII!
Your views (if someone is kind enough to call this pile of hummus - views) about Poland and Polish history is known to anybody who is on PF longer then a week.

You and Ozi Dan should make thread for both of you - Ozi Dan and Harry exchange their views on Poland, Polish history and life.

I-S ( its actually a pretty good idea)

Not that I do not appreciate Ozi Dan contribution.
However it would be interesting if someone shared his/her knowledge about British perception of Poland before WWII and I mean BEFORE!
Harry
23 Jun 2010 #35
Why do you ask a rhetorical question?

From a purely selfish British point of view, Hitler did not 'have to be stopped'. He saw the British as nothing but natural friends and co-rulers of the world.

Why then did HMG not form an alliance with Nazi Germany if that was the case, rather than with Poland?

Sheer stupidity and a vague sense of wanting to 'do the right thing', along with delusions of grandeur as regards British power. Common problems with British politicians.

Peking! Peking! Peking! A joint operation, mutually consented to, whereby some ships of the Polish navy went to Britain and served under HMG with gallantry.

No doubt if Britain hadn't accepted that those Polish ships would be sailing in precisely the opposite direction to British ships manned by personnel whose deaths you are charming enough to call "irrelevances" and had told the Poles to stay and fight, Poles would now whine about that. Just as Poles whine about British ships not entering the very same sea their own navy wouldn't sail into.

The burden of proof is not on me to give examples

Yes it is. You are claiming that more could be done. Give some examples to prove your claim.

the fact that HMG committed a prima facie breach of article 5 by not telling Poland about what happened at Teheran in respect of the relevant matters raised there concerning the future of Poland.

And yet again you parrot a claim but do nothing to support it. Given that Stalin had agreed that Poland would be an independent nation and had at Tehran agreed the eastern border of that nation, it is impossible for you to claim that the agreements at Tehran were a threat to Poland's independence. Not that it'll stop you from doing just that of course.

Really?

You are making the claim: the burden of supporting your claim rests on you, so quote from the relevant sections of British law. While you are looking for proof, I would direct you to Section 21 of the Road Safety Act of 2006.

And therein lies the answer. 'Poland' was not disqualified, no matter how much you wish it was. My proposition stands.

"Poor me!" says the paedophile, "I was raped by two big men!"
isthatu2 4 | 2,694
23 Jun 2010 #36
What exactly did POLAND do in 1938/39 to stop the rise of Nazi Germany????
Simple question really,any answers?
You guys say" Britain only fought the germans when Britian was attacked(apart from this being obviously untrue)", when exactly did Poland attack the germans...The Bzura granted, they also fought back at Wessterplatte and in Danzig,but,er,note Fought back unless you guys believe it was actually Polish forces who attacked the radio relay station at Gliwice....
Amathyst 19 | 2,702
23 Jun 2010 #37
Dear Harry would you kindly buzz off my thread as you are not really contributing to it.

I think he's making some rather good points or is is okay to slander the British and expect them not to retaliate?

Topic is Poland in the eyes of London BEFORE WWII!

That's a rather broad quote, most English people didnt even know where Poland was before WWII and to suggest otherwise is a quite rediculous.

Simple question really,any answers?

They're not going to materialise any time soon.
Harry
23 Jun 2010 #38
What exactly did POLAND do in 1938/39 to stop the rise of Nazi Germany????

Does taking part in the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938 count?
Seanus 15 | 19,674
23 Jun 2010 #39
It was too late by 1938. Hitler was basically ready by 1936 but the extra time didn't hurt. Rumour has it that Poland knew of some of his plans. Britain certainly had key documents.
ender 5 | 398
23 Jun 2010 #40
I was raped by two big men!

Don't worry Hairy you will find gentle lover.
OP Ironside 53 | 12,450
23 Jun 2010 #41
What exactly did POLAND do in 1938/39 to stop the rise of Nazi Germany????

The Nazi Germany rise in 1933/36 so, your question is not only simple but silly, considering that Poland could avoid all this hassle consenting to German proposal of an alliance.

I'll answer it anyway - Refusing alliance with Hitler and fighting as the first country against Nazi Germany.

I think he's making some rather good points or is is okay to slander the British and expect them not to retaliate?

What point it would be? Even if sometimes he makes some sense generally he is only slandering and mocking and given that the most of the PF posters have no intimate knowledge of the Polish history and ALL the circumstances his evil twist give it appearance of the truth.

Also even if some posters use inappropriate word or expression, crux of the matter is that you cannot discus with facts, and fact is that Britain and France didn't attack Germany as they promised.

Second fact is that Poland didn't regain independence after 1945 and the rest is only silence. I think that is good that this void is filled with words and I don't think that sense of betrayal many Poles feels (passed by WWII generation ) couldn't be quenched or addressed by - you are stupid bastards and you ******* Poles deserved it all.

Which is exactly what Harry does.

That's a rather broad quote, most English people didnt even know where Poland was before WWII and to suggest otherwise is a quite rediculous.

Saying London I mean government and ruling class, not general population.

They're not going to materialise any time soon.

see above :)

Does taking part in the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938 count?

Yes, as it wasn't taking Part in the Nazi invasion but direct challenge to Hitler, one which he understood. The same goes for a many Czechoslovakian soldiers who often with their arms come to Poland and offered their services to Polish Army for a chance to fight against Germans. I'm sure that you know better Harry than those officers and soldiers.

Once again topic is - before WWII
isthatu2 4 | 2,694
25 Jun 2010 #42
Does taking part in the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938 count?

Its often puzzled me this,still not heard a comen sense answer,even from "real" historians, why was Polands attempts to grab land they saw as theirs but stolen at versailles so noble and righteous but Germanys far more sensable and well,justified claim over danzig and a road to East prussia as somthing treacherous and line in the sand time?? Just dont get that,either both claims were justified or neither was.
Harry
25 Jun 2010 #43
fact is that Britain and France didn't attack Germany as they promised.

No, that is the same tired old lie that Poles trot out. Find a new one.

Just dont get that,either both claims were justified or neither was.

You fail to understand that one claim was made by Germans and one was made by Poles. Poles, as anybody who has ever met any will know, are a nation that is never ever wrong.
OP Ironside 53 | 12,450
25 Jun 2010 #44
No, that is the same tired old lie that Poles trot out. Find a new one.

No, that the fact, you are just making excuses, either stop making excuses on behalf of France and Britain or provide me with a prove that Polish Government before WWII signed with said country's not an alliance but semblance of an alliance.

why was Polands attempts to grab land they saw as theirs but stolen at versailles so noble and righteous

What are you about?

but Germanys far more sensable and well,justified claim over danzig and a road to East prussia

Really? Who told you that?Hitler or Stalin ?

Just dont get

Fine, stop making presumption and simply ask!

Poles, as anybody who has ever met any will know, are a nation that is never ever wrong.

Holly-molly that exactly like you Harry!
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,368
26 Jun 2010 #45
From a purely selfish British point of view, Hitler did not 'have to be stopped'. He saw the British as nothing but natural friends and co-rulers of the world.

You are severely deluded, Hitler would only stop if there was a Nazi puppet regime in Britain, perhaps with Oswald Mosley as leader.
Seanus 15 | 19,674
26 Jun 2010 #46
I agree with hague here. Harry, he saw Britain as a power that needed to be brought to its knees. He underestimated our RAF.
Seanus 15 | 19,674
26 Jun 2010 #48
Hitler wanted it all. He was an all-or-nothing kind of guy. He bit off more than he could chew by taking on Russia.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,368
26 Jun 2010 #49
Its often puzzled me this,still not heard a comen sense answer,even from "real" historians, why was Polands attempts to grab land they saw as theirs but stolen at versailles so noble and righteous but Germanys far more sensable and well,justified claim over danzig and a road to East prussia as somthing treacherous and line in the sand time??

You are easily Puzzled, Hitler also wanted the Sudetenland, and yet he took the whole of Czech Republic.
nott 3 | 594
26 Jun 2010 #50
Poles, as anybody who has ever met any will know, are a nation that is never ever wrong.

And you should stick to this wisdom, mate, would do you hell of a good. Rough approximation is massively better than barking mad independence of... brain reactivity... or sumtin...

Verily, I say unto thee: every and each nation has its @rsehole. Stands to reason.

-----------------------------------

Seanus, you've got that unnerving ability to sum it all up in a one-liner. I don't like you. You erode my ego.

As for the RAF, though, I think this was not his basic mistake. I think he overestimated your naval power, and thus willingly gave ear to Goering's pompous bragging. I am not going to defend this stance to death, however, and some reasonable compromise will satisfy me more than fully.
Matowy - | 294
26 Jun 2010 #51
I think he overestimated your naval power

As well he should have, as it's what starved Germany into submission during the First Word War.
OP Ironside 53 | 12,450
28 Jun 2010 #52
it's what starved Germany into submission during the First Word War.

starved ?
Matowy - | 294
28 Jun 2010 #53
Their blockade meant that Germany was starving, and supplies to troops were either thin or non-existent. By the end the Allies were fighting a starving and disease-ridden German army, not to mention the starving populace.
Babinich 1 | 455
28 Jun 2010 #54
He bit off more than he could chew by taking on Russia.

AND declaring war on the USA.
Seanus 15 | 19,674
28 Jun 2010 #55
Ah, nott, but without all that inbetween talking, many people would be out of a job. War brings plentiful jobs and people out of hibernation. Suddenly, everyone becomes a frickin war correspondent, political activist or political scientist overnight.

Part of it was Goering's strategy of 'bunching'. He adopted the safety in numbers logic but that was largely nullified by swooping dives by RAF pilots who knew the lay of the land better.

Well, that too, Babinich ;) ;) He just didn't know when to throw in the towel.
nott 3 | 594
29 Jun 2010 #56
Part of it was Goering's strategy of 'bunching'. He adopted the safety in numbers logic but that was largely nullified by swooping dives by RAF pilots who knew the lay of the land better.

I remember one BBC documentary, and they said that while the RAF was vastly outnumbered, they had a very good early warning system, so they could use the resources where and when needed.

(not to mention Polish fighter pilots :)
dtaylor5632 18 | 2,004
29 Jun 2010 #57
and they said that while the RAF was vastly outnumbered

They had a good Radar set up in place.
nott 3 | 594
29 Jun 2010 #58
There was something else, which I didn't know about till then. A network of concrete acoustic 'antennas' on the southern shores.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
29 Jun 2010 #59
You and Ozi Dan should make thread for both of you - Ozi Dan and Harry exchange their views on Poland, Polish history and life.

I'm sorry for going off topic with your interesting thread. Your idea of a thread for both me and Harry gave me a laugh though. If we did it, people would think us bigger dickheads than we already are: 2 Aussies on a Polish forum, one of whom has never been there, the other who doesn't speak Polish, swapping arguments on Poland on a dedicated thread.

Per your thread though, if you go to the online Time magazine archive (google it) there are some excellent contemporary articles directly concenring Poland and England just before WW2. If I recall the articles correctly, there was a lot of camaraderie and mutual backslapping. Once you're in the archives, search for Smigly-Rydz and Colonel Beck and that will point you in the right direction.
OP Ironside 53 | 12,450
29 Jun 2010 #60
Their blockade meant that Germany was starving

I'm not familiar with above, where Germany dependent on imported food?

if you go to the online Time magazine archive

thank you


Home / History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII.